CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 November 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 410/16 Eva MISSIOU KARAGIANNIDOU against Greece lodged on 24 December 2015 communicated on 20 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the conviction of a doctor for manslaughter due to criminal negligence arising out of the fact that, instead of immediately performing an urgent operation on her patient, victim of a heavy bleeding following a caesarean, she ordered her transfer to another hospital during which she died. The Court of Appeal refused the request of the applicant to adjourn the case in order to call a material witness (whose testimony would allegedly strengthen the applicant’s position that this operation could not be performed because of a lack of blood bags in that hospital), considering that the existing evidence was sufficient to form an opinion and that an adjournment would risk leading to the prescription of the crime. The Court of Cassation, which upheld the appeal decision, observed in its judgment inter alia that it had not been proven that the hospital in question had been lacking sufficient blood bags. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the rejection by the Court of Appeal of the applicant’s request to call a material witness compatible with Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, § 158, 18   December 2018)?   2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? In particular, did the statement contained in the Court of Cassation’s judgment imply a shift of the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence (see Telfner v. Austria , no.   33501/96, §§ 15-20, 20 March 2001)?